What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5012128 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $982.75 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5012128?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5012128?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5012128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10901218-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5012128 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $982.75 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5012128?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5012128?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5012128?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10901218-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36 Seine Road, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5012128 — Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $982.75 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s].
I am dismissing the landlords claim for damages.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the tenant caused the following damage during the tenancy: Rips and marks on the wallpaper in the 3 rd bedroom.
The landlord said this was damage and more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant said that the wallpaper was heavily damaged and old at the start of the tenancy. She said there may have been a few more marks from moving furniture around, but that it did not warrant the whole room being renovated.
The landlord provided a pre-let inspection report and photos from the start of the tenancy. In the report it stated that the walls in the 3 rd bedroom (which is the subject of this application), were in a fair condition, with missing wallpaper and patches throughout and lots of scratches to the wallpaper below the large windows.
The landlord was unable to say how long the wallpaper had been on the walls but that it was not new paper, and the house was probably 30-40 years old.
The exit inspection identified marks and scratches on the walls of the 3 rd bedroom and the landlord obtained a tradesperson to remove the wallpaper and paint the whole bedroom.
I do not find that the landlord has proven her claim for damage to the wallpaper. The wallpaper was very old, in “fair” condition with numerous marks, scratches and patched in the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
In summary I do not accept that the tenant had damaged the wallpaper in bedroom 3. Even if there were new scratches in the wallpaper, that did not warrant the tenant being liable for the cost of the repair given the age and condition of the wallpaper and the betterment for the landlord in the painting.
The tenant is to be refunded her remaining bond from the bond centre immediately.
The tenant applied for suppression of her name and details and as she has been successful I will grant suppression.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $982.75 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s].
I am dismissing the landlords claim for damages.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims that the tenant caused the following damage during the tenancy: Rips and marks on the wallpaper in the 3 rd bedroom.
The landlord said this was damage and more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant said that the wallpaper was heavily damaged and old at the start of the tenancy. She said there may have been a few more marks from moving furniture around, but that it did not warrant the whole room being renovated.
The landlord provided a pre-let inspection report and photos from the start of the tenancy. In the report it stated that the walls in the 3 rd bedroom (which is the subject of this application), were in a fair condition, with missing wallpaper and patches throughout and lots of scratches to the wallpaper below the large windows.
The landlord was unable to say how long the wallpaper had been on the walls but that it was not new paper, and the house was probably 30-40 years old.
The exit inspection identified marks and scratches on the walls of the 3 rd bedroom and the landlord obtained a tradesperson to remove the wallpaper and paint the whole bedroom.
I do not find that the landlord has proven her claim for damage to the wallpaper. The wallpaper was very old, in “fair” condition with numerous marks, scratches and patched in the wallpaper at the start of the tenancy.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
In summary I do not accept that the tenant had damaged the wallpaper in bedroom 3. Even if there were new scratches in the wallpaper, that did not warrant the tenant being liable for the cost of the repair given the age and condition of the wallpaper and the betterment for the landlord in the painting.
The tenant is to be refunded her remaining bond from the bond centre immediately.
The tenant applied for suppression of her name and details and as she has been successful I will grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5012128 — Property damage at 36 Seine Road, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5012128 — Property damage at 36 Seine Road, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions